The Troll Posted January 13, 2007 Share Posted January 13, 2007 Nothing I like about this Brandon Jacobs clone. He's tall for a running back, which will lend itself to leg injuries because players will have to bring him down below this waist. This is already a factor, as a broken leg already cost him his senior season. I see some people say that Marshawn Lynch is a system back. And Bush isn't? That offense did not miss a beat whenever Bush got hurt this season. To add even more to the case against Bush, Eric Shelton, who has a similar build to Bush and excelled in the exact same college system, has been a complete flop at the pro level. Michael Bush's best college season: 205 carries, 1,143 yards (5.6), 23 TDs Eric Shelton: 146 carries, 938 yards (6.4), 20 TDs I seriously don't get it. A VERY similar player from the exact same system has already come into the league and failed miserably. Why is Michael Bush supposed to be so different? Because he has more hype than Shelton? Because he used to be a QB? I am baffled here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PFSIKH Posted January 13, 2007 Share Posted January 13, 2007 Untapped potential. Bush was a 250lb pile of goo. However, before last season he had finally dedicated himself to an offseason program that consisted of more then just eating. He was still 250ish, but he was chisled and done to like 7-10 percent body fat. Those are decent numbers. They tried to extrapolate what he could do after finally dedicating himslef. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bitonti Posted January 13, 2007 Share Posted January 13, 2007 agree completely i am not a buyer the trend in the NFL is smaller faster backs willie parker leon washington maurice jones-drew brian westbrook reggie bush michael bush would be amazing 15 years ago now i agree he'd probably bust up his knee sooner or later contra case: adrian peterson is pretty tall as well but he has better moves, m bush is a north south runner Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PFSIKH Posted January 13, 2007 Share Posted January 13, 2007 agree completely i am not a buyer the trend in the NFL is smaller faster backs willie parker leon washington maurice jones-drew brian westbrook reggie bush michael bush would be amazing 15 years ago now i agree he'd probably bust up his knee sooner or later contra case: adrian peterson is pretty tall as well but he has better moves, m bush is a north south runner I have to disagree bit with your trend take. The top 3, 6 of 10 and 11 of the top 16 rushers were 220 and over. Teams want a back that can carry the load. There is a reason 4 of your 5 examples slid past the first round. Too short. Too small. Willie Parker and Westbrook to a point, showed they can handle a heavy load. Would Bush, Drew and Washington be as productive carrying the ball 320+ times and catching the ball over a 16 game season? Maybe, maybe not. Size matters in the NFL. It is nice when a Barry Sanders shows he can be under 6 feet tall and 200 lbs, but he is more of an exception then rule. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Troll Posted January 13, 2007 Author Share Posted January 13, 2007 I have to disagree bit with your trend take. The top 3, 6 of 10 and 11 of the top 16 rushers were 220 and over. Teams want a back that can carry the load. There is a reason 4 of your 5 examples slid past the first round. Too short. Too small. Willie Parker and Westbrook to a point, showed they can handle a heavy load. Would Bush, Drew and Washington be as productive carrying the ball 320+ times and catching the ball over a 16 game season? Maybe, maybe not. Size matters in the NFL. It is nice when a Barry Sanders shows he can be under 6 feet tall and 200 lbs, but he is more of an exception then rule. And how many of the top rushers weigh 250 pounds? The only successful back I can remember in the past 15 years that was that large was Jerome Bettis, and he was three yards and a cloud of dust. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ECURB Posted January 13, 2007 Share Posted January 13, 2007 And how many of the top rushers weigh 250 pounds? The only successful back I can remember in the past 15 years that was that large was Jerome Bettis, and he was three yards and a cloud of dust. Michael Bush is more like 240ish and you never know what they really weight at this point... also with Mangini' camp and with PRO-Trainers... Im sure he could be a 235-240lb back all seaosn... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barton Posted January 13, 2007 Share Posted January 13, 2007 He is not worthy of being a starter, he just isnt that good. He is too tall and doesnt have the moves or the speed. We'll see how he tests at the combine, but I was never impressed with his game speed. I hope the Jets stay away from him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bitonti Posted January 13, 2007 Share Posted January 13, 2007 I have to disagree bit with your trend take. The top 3, 6 of 10 and 11 of the top 16 rushers were 220 and over. you are giving me 4 out of top 16 (another way to put it would be 3 out of top 10) weight im not concerned but i am about height how tall were thse players? more height presents the defender with more to hit defenders are getting nastier every season Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Preston Howley III Posted January 13, 2007 Share Posted January 13, 2007 you are giving me 4 out of top 16 (another way to put it would be 3 out of top 10) weight im not concerned but i am about height how tall were thse players? more height presents the defender with more to hit defenders are getting nastier every season Any chance Arkansas Junior FB Peyton Hillis is declaring eligibility for the NFL draft this year? That's the big bruiser ala John Riggins the Jets could use, assuming he can make the transition from college to the NFL. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CoachTsurfing Posted January 13, 2007 Share Posted January 13, 2007 Well I love bush, he is going to be a great back. Just my gut feeling. I like the idea of us having the smaller scat back, I just feel that we need a bigger guy to tandem with leon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stormshadow19 Posted January 13, 2007 Share Posted January 13, 2007 you are giving me 4 out of top 16 (another way to put it would be 3 out of top 10) weight im not concerned but i am about height how tall were thse players? more height presents the defender with more to hit defenders are getting nastier every season I think you read that wrong. He said the top 3 rushers... then six rushers out of the top ten, and 11 out of the top sixteen rushers. He's saying eleven of the top sixteen rushers are over 220 pounds. Not the number 3, 6, 10 and 11 rushers... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PFSIKH Posted January 14, 2007 Share Posted January 14, 2007 you are giving me 4 out of top 16 (another way to put it would be 3 out of top 10) weight im not concerned but i am about height how tall were thse players? more height presents the defender with more to hit defenders are getting nastier every season What? The top 3. 6 of 10. 11 of the top 16 rushers were 220 and above. How the hell do you only get 4 batman? You are stretching bit. You want to make it out that there is a huge height difference. Of the top 10 rushers, they were all with in 5 inches of each other and that has little to do with area that can be hit. Now, if you want to talk about running styles, that is another matter. I would agree NFL teams look for running backs that do not have an erect running style that lends itself for the backs to being hit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
#27TheDominator Posted January 14, 2007 Share Posted January 14, 2007 What? The top 3. 6 of 10. 11 of the top 16 rushers were 220 and above. How the hell do you only get 4 batman? You are stretching bit. You want to make it out that there is a huge height difference. Of the top 10 rushers, they were all with in 5 inches of each other and that has little to do with area that can be hit. Now, if you want to talk about running styles, that is another matter. I would agree NFL teams look for running backs that do not have an erect running style that lends itself for the backs to being hit. 5" is a lot. That's the difference between a center and a small foward. Clemens is a midget at 6'0" even, if he were 5" taller he'd be huge, bigger than Vinny T. Still I agree it has more to do with style. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PFSIKH Posted January 14, 2007 Share Posted January 14, 2007 5" is a lot. That's the difference between a center and a small foward. Clemens is a midget at 6'0" even, if he were 5" taller he'd be huge, bigger than Vinny T. Still I agree it has more to do with style. For a QB, that is huge. For a RB, while important, it is less important. Bit's original contention was the NFL is moving towards smaller faster backs. It was a vague statement so I went with lbs. I showed him that a majority of the top rushers from this season were 220 and over. Then he said he meant height. However, using his examples, their is a five inch difference there from Bush (6 ft.) to Jones-Drew (5' 7"). The top rushers ranged from 5' 8" (Westbrook) to 6' 2" (Jackson). A majority were in the 5' 10" to 6 range. Not exactly a rush to midgets like Westbrook, Jones-Drew and Washington. Again, my point is this, it is not so much height, but running style. If a back has an upright running style, he is more apt to get hit. If Westbrook and Jackson had an upright style, he had a point, but they do not so it is moot. The NFL is going to look for a back with average height and some lbs to him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
#27TheDominator Posted January 14, 2007 Share Posted January 14, 2007 For a QB, that is huge. For a RB, while important, it is less important. Bit's original contention was the NFL is moving towards smaller faster backs. It was a vague statement so I went with lbs. I showed him that a majority of the top rushers from this season were 220 and over. Then he said he meant height. However, using his examples, their is a five inch difference there from Bush (6 ft.) to Jones-Drew (5' 7"). The top rushers ranged from 5' 8" (Westbrook) to 6' 2" (Jackson). A majority were in the 5' 10" to 6 range. Not exactly a rush to midgets like Westbrook, Jones-Drew and Washington. Again, my point is this, it is not so much height, but running style. If a back has an upright running style, he is more apt to get hit. If Westbrook and Jackson had an upright style, he had a point, but they do not so it is moot. The NFL is going to look for a back with average height and some lbs to him. You say 5" isn't much for backs he says it is. I agree that running style and weight are more important. I don't necessarily disagree with you, but I still think 5" is a huge amount. I think it indicates more than anything is that there is more than one way to core a apple. It's not the body, but the player. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PFSIKH Posted January 14, 2007 Share Posted January 14, 2007 You say 5" isn't much for backs he says it is. I agree that running style and weight are more important. I don't necessarily disagree with you, but I still think 5" is a huge amount. I think it indicates more than anything is that there is more than one way to core a apple. It's not the body, but the player. True. I am just showing his selections which aremeant to illustrate his point of the NFL moving to small fast backs, covers 5 inches. It also overlaps the average height for a back. The best backs in NFL history range from light weights (Sanders) to big backs (Brown and Tomlinson) . Plus differences in height from short (Emmitt) to tall (Dickerson). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gang_green03 Posted January 14, 2007 Share Posted January 14, 2007 Physically he's a beast but the way he runs makes me nervous about him as a prospect. I've watched him a little and he seems to run very soft for being so big and I've heard the same thing from other people who have watched him play. If he wasn't so soft I wouldn't mind him on my team but I don't want a 250lbs finesse back. Someone who has watched him play a lot please refute or explain this tendency of his because I don't really understand some of the Bush love either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bitonti Posted January 14, 2007 Share Posted January 14, 2007 my point is how many of these top rushers are 6'2" 247 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.